Skip to main content

About your Search

20130801
20130831
STATION
CSPAN2 14
CSPAN 3
CNNW 2
KQED (PBS) 2
KRCB (PBS) 1
LANGUAGE
English 27
Search Results 0 to 26 of about 27 (some duplicates have been removed)
that from george w. bush w who will not enter into the fray of this but understands what president obama is going through. he has been in that oval office. making these tough calls. there is only a few living americans who will understand how difficult these positidecis are. >> we are given the heads up of 1:15 eastern time for this statement. as often happens, with this white house, it is a bit delayed. we don't have a two-minute warning as of yet. we are back with our panel, chris wallace and ollie north. what do you expect him to say? is this more laying out the case? >> i think we will probably -- with a situation where he will announce he will continue to deliberate on this and will try to build some relationships. my guess is because the window is so narrow. you would have to do this tomorrow night. sunday might. because he is not going to do it before he briefs the rest of the members of congress. that's going to be tomorrow. he is going to leave monday night for sweden and then -- but -- that gives him essentially sunday night or monday night to make the attack. you probably don'
believe the economy was so messed up by george bush that obama struggled mightily to overcome this horrible situation he inherited. the second reason is most americans believe republicans only care about rich people. and those are branding problems that the republican party has to to overcome. and it's hard to overcome it because you've got three obstacles; academia, hollywood and our major media, all of which are overwhelmingly liberal. when you say something, it's got to be interpreted through the filter of those three entities, and often it's been distorted. >> host: larry elder is our guest, this is booktv on c-span2 live from the los angeles times festival of books, campus of usc. mike's in fort worth, texas. hi, mike. >> caller: how's it going, larry? my -- pretty good. i'm a african-american democrat, but i agree with you one of the big problems in the african-american community is lack of fathers in the house. but i think, larry, when you say that, you kind of come off kind of harsh on black people. now, what's the reason behind the lack of a lot of fathers being in th
council approve as has happened before, president george bush with iraq and president bill clinton with the co kosovo bombing in 1999. >>> live to the state department with an update from there. >> good avenue. we want to emphasize state department officials, white house officials, pentagon officials are emphasizing both on the record and privately that the commander in chief, president obama, has not yet made any decision about the action the united states is going to take in syria beyond the fact there will be an action. sources tell me the likely targtsz of the u.s. campaign will include the delivery systems for bashar al assad's chemicalarsenal. we are said to be striking command facilities located in damascus but also syria short range missile launches looking to conduct strikes against those targets. i'm told bashar al assad's presidential palace, some of the governmental military locations in damascus will not be targeted because a lot of key systems have been evacuated. a lot of artillery positions in the syrian government are located in mountains outside the city and those
calculation and work to win public opinion over. baker understood it. george bush unfortunately never did. what happened was when israel attacked gaza when israel attacked lebanon and the u.s. committed outrages in iran we lost public opinion and we have this guy in tehran becoming the new hero of the arab masses saying to them your governments are doing nothing. i am the one standing up against the west on 2006 the numbers were way up. iran's numbers rose as arab alienation and frustration with the west grew. as the ability or the willingness of their own leaders to challenge the west became obvious they went down and ahmadinejad went up and to chart all assad window. it became the resistance that was fighting for arab honor and a period one one air of honor was viewed after abu ghraib. it's tough. we don't want to remember abu ghraib. the arabs don't. we don't want to think about what the iraq war meant all those years or the continued situation of palestinians over lebanon's beleaguered after all these years and continually under threat. it was occupied for 20 years. we don't want to t
on their taxes. >> up next, george w. bush institute resale the series of discussions looking at immigrants contributions for america. this panel focuses on the economic effects of naturalization. from dallas, this is about one hour. >> a pleasure to be here. i worked for closed with president bush when he was in the white house trying to advance immigration reform in the last battle and so it's a pleasure for me to be back in his beautiful new house, talking about immigration. so thank you to this institute. i want to harken back as we get started to the ceremony that we saw this morning combat incredible moving ceremony because what we're going to talk about here today is not just out immigration is good for america, but have naturalization and citizenship actually even ups the ante and makes immigrants even more beneficial for the united states. to benefit themselves, but it's also a benefit for the country. so the very people we saw this morning when they came in the door, they were great for america but as they went out the door their even more. they will be even more of an asset. we w
have claimed and therefore george bush could say don't pay into it, simply give each person the fund and they can invest on their pension. if you monetize your deferred compensation, that is a terrible idea. it further damages the devotee of people to have social and there is a link to having a social wage is that it dramatically is important for the society because then people start to see of objectively the interest is united. one of the great tracks to american history is rather than to countercyclical spending through the social expenditure, it is always been done through the military spending. you spend militarily through bringing the economy back to life. that was the whole post world war golden age etc we've so in that sense one has to confront this idea because it is easy to do the spending on the military because it is already a hari article society in the military and encampment that the more you begin to feel objectively or ties with other people are there you might be able to create a political movement where people subjectively then relate to the common agenda and i thin
for diplomacy and pressure is running out when we haven't even tried direct diplomacy. george bush and dick cheney must hear loud and clear from the american people and the congress, you do not have our support and you do not have our authorization to launch another war. martha: that was back in 2011. -- that was back in 2007 and now we are on the cusp of other action going into syria. a younger looking barack obama then senator now president. he always had at the core of everything he talked about, getting out of the wars in iraq and afghanistan. in the state of the union he talked about putting the decade of wars behind us. so what's your reaction to where we are today with syria? >> great disappointment. i supported him as an anti-war candidate. we had a surge in afghanistan. we went into libya. against the very thing he talked about in 2007. he has to inform congress within 48 hours of any kind of military action then he has 60 days after which he would need congressional authorization to continue a war. that started in 1973 and that was violated by bill clinton and ronald reagan. presi
president george w. bush made his case for going to war with iraq and why mideast dictator was an essential step for both the united states and the world. >> the iraqi regime is a serious and growing threat to peace. on the commands of a dictator, the regime is armed with biological and chemical weapons, possesses ballistic missiles, promotes international terror, and seeks nuclear weapons. >> nearly 11 years later another u.s. president is explaining why he feels getting involved in the middle east is in the best interest of the u.s. people. my next guest though says the similarities between the two conflicts are few. jane newton small is a terrific reporter and times magazine reporter. you've written an article that a lot of team are talking about for "time," "six ways syria 2013 isn't iraq in 2003." differences you say include how the u.s. is handling the regime, the time commitment given by the u.s., the support from the arab world and yooirp, weapons of mass destruction, and how much support there is from congress. let's begin with the first difference you list. regime change. explain
baker had with george bush because -- i don't know exactly the reason, but i said, for example, the other day, the national security adviser went to moscow to meet with the russian president has started arranging a relationship. if i was secretary of state would not have tolerated that. that is my job. and as national security adviser , you're a staff person, not a principle. i remember when general powell got the role. he understood. he came around to me and said, i am a member of your staff. obviously the president is my main guy, but my job is to staff the council. and so i think that is beginning to get out of kilter. in my book have quite a lot to say about the structural governance and how it is going, i think, in the wrong direction. >> host: secretary george shultz, a couple more issues on your mind. number one, demographics. you're worried about demographics. >> guest: i'm not worried. an observant. i see that the demographics of the world had changed and are continuing to change rapidly. the developed countries basically have no fertility. they are getting to be older
at two other instances in which an american president used force, in the case of george bush in iraq, he had a congressional authorization and one u.n. resolution. in syria he has, president obama has neither of those but i think the u.s. congress and many in the need yaw are saying, what about libya? i mean we went to war in libya without a congressional authorization. we spent one billion dollars. we had 220 tomahawk missile strikes, et cetera, et cetera. what do we have at the end of it? we have benghazi with dead american ambassador and three diplomats and a country not really controlled by its own government. are we any better off? so there is so much skepticism as lauren pointed out, within the media but it mostly is based on america's previous experiences using force projecting force, mostly on its own. jon: let me take you to the second part of that charles krauthamer column because he touches on some of those points that you just made, judy. he also wrote last year, mr. obama told us repeatedly that the tide of war is receding. this year he grandly declared that the entire war o
for. george w. bush had done that i think he would've been, we would've been heard cries of impeachment. we had part of our immigration laws suspended by the president. there's just a variety of issues like that where he has gone outside. we have tension with our system, struggles between congress and the president. this one is very -- i think you'll see it continue. but there will be legal cases. >> i'm going to try to bounce around a little bit but again we will get to everybody. >> i was a little concerned to find that you were not in support of making the continuing resolution contingent upon removing what optional spending you move on obamacare. i feel very strongly. i speak from a point of view -- [applause] >> i think they do, too. >> this is not theoretical for me because two weeks ago today my husband and i paid in cash for our son to have major surgery. but, you know, what? that's the price i paid for the liberty of my children. i'm self-employed. i understand the consequent of that as i've limited options thanks our government on insurance. i understand that i
, not everybody, but a lot of people would agree that president bush, george w. bush, was obligated to strike back against al qaeda after september 11, 2001. we were attacked, and we had to respond. and i think that most people would say that president obama the very right to launch azeinab badawi race that killed osama bin laden. history and diplomacy co-exist. they interact with each other and they sometimes can complement each other. richard holbrooke, the late richard holbrooke, great american diplomat, i don't think he would have been able to secure the peace in bosnia had we not used force for six weeks to demonstrate to the bosnian-serb army that we were not going to permit them to continue to kill innocent muslims. and it was that use of force that achieved the cease-fire and drove them to the negotiating table where holbrook worked his magic and brought peace to bosnia after five years of war. so there are times when we have to rely on our military and we're fortunate, as all of you know, to have extraordinary young men and women in our military and the army and the navy and the air force
-- george w. bush-- was unable to attend today, as he recovers from a recent heart procedure. instead, he issued a statement saying: the moment that dr. king delivered his famous address-- with the appeal to "let freedom ring"-- was marked by a bell- ringing ceremony. that set the stage for the first african american president, who said the struggle for economic opportunity remains the nation's great unfinished business, but he voiced hope. there's a reason why so many who marched that day, and in the days to come, were young-- for the young are unconstrained by habits of fear, by the conventions of what is. they dared to dream differently, to imagine something better. and i am convinced that same imagination, the same hunger of purpose, stirs in this generation. we may not face the same dangers of 1963, but the fierce urgency of now remains. we may never duplicate the swelling crowds and dazzling procession of that day so long ago-- no one can match king's brilliance but the same flame can light the heart of all who are willing to take a first step towards justice. i know that flame rema
, therefore, george bush could say, well, don't pay into it. simply give each potential -- each person a fund. you monetize your deferred compensation. it's a terrible idea. it further damages the ability of people to have a social thing. and by the way, the link to having a social wage is that it's dramatic create important for society. -- dramatically important for society. because then people start to see objectively their interests are united. you know, one of the great tricks of american history is rather than do countercyclical spending through social expenditure, countercyclical spending in america has always been done through military spending. you spend militarily to bring the economy back to life. that was the whole post-war golden age, etc. so in that sense one has to confront this idea, you know, because it was easy to do countercyclical spending with the military because it's already a hierarchical society, you know, in military encampments. but society is not hierarchical, and the more you begin to feel objectively that your ties with other people are there, you might be able to
not made a decision yet, former president george w. bush is weighing in. >> the president has a tough decision to make and if he decides to use our military, he'll have the greatest military ever backing him up. i was not a fan of mr. assad. he's an ally of iran and he made mischief. the president has to make a tough call. i know you are trying to suddenly rope me into the issues of the day. i refuse to be roped in. >> our chief political analyst gloria borger joins me from washington. you listened to secretary of state john kerry today. you heard the former president, reporters trying to ask questions of him. it's not a matter of what do we do about it, we be the united states? >> i think if you listened to the secretary of state, it was very clear that he believed he didn't need to wait for information from the weapons inspectors, from the united nations. he said very clearly that a u.n. investigators can't tell us anything we don't already know. and between the secretary of state and a background call that senior administration officials had with journalists, it's very clear they b
't the same kind of relationships that i had with president nixon that, say, jim baker had with george bush. because i don't know exactly the reason. but i saw, for example, the other day that the national security adviser went to moscow to meet with putin and started ranging that relationship. if i was secretary of state, i would not tolerate that. that's my job. and the national security adviser's a staff person, not a principal. i remember when colin powell got the job of secretary of national security adviser, he understood. and he came around to me, and he said i'm a member of your staff. obviously, the president's my main guide, but with my job is to staff the could be is ill. the council. and so i think that's beginning to get out of kilter, and in my book i have quite a lot to say about the structure of governance and how it's going, i think, in the wrong direction. >> host: secretary schultz, a couple more issues on your mind. number one, demographics. you're worried about demographics. >> guest: oh, i'm not worried about it, i'm observant of it. i see that the demographics of the
to an attack on or threat to americans. bill clinton, george h.w. bush, ronald reagan. this would be different, would it not? >> no, i don't think so. i think when bill clinton got a nato agreement to attack serbia in the late 1990s because of the serbian attacks on cost so - so -- kosovo, that was another attack there there were no united states interests at stake, what's about to happen here. in both cases there was no chance the security council would agree to u.s. or nato action because of a russian veto. here are two clear cases this notion the u.s. can only act with the security council's approval or act militarily without it would violate the u.n. charter are wrong. >> ambassador bolton, thank you for standing by. we may come back to you in just a moment. we are awaiting the president's remarks. he is in the white house meeting with leaders in the baltic region. we were give an heads-up he would make remarks. here it is. >> everybody set up? obvious obviously, i'm very grateful to have my former presidents here as well as vice president. before i begin i want to say a few things about t
and human services from 2001 to 2005. he was appointed by president george w. bush. most recently for the record the governor joined the bipartisan policy center here as a senior adviser and we welcome him very much to the organization. governor, the budget when you took over in 2001 was about $380 billion is my record here. along with social security the was the largest and is the largest still today of the domestic agency. when you left at the end of 2004 it had grown $200 billion to over 580 billion-dollar agency. during your tenure you were hit with a slew of emergencies, anthrax, post 911, concerns over bioterrorism, the flu and the need to stockpile the smallpox vaccine. you also cleared up the plans to expand health insurance coveragn so when i look at your budget i know we are supposed to talk about constrained budgets but one might conclude you had no budget constraints on your agency but omb and barry anderson gave you a budget tie line. how did you go about and did the congress and particularly place restraints under congressional a budget that you hadn't anticipated cl
will ever know what is inside vladimir putin's head. that was the irony of george w. bush coming back from that first meeting with putin and saying, i looked into his eyes and saw the man's soul. nobody really knows what putin is thinking. what we know from his behavior in public statements is, he really values a partner. whether it is an american leader or a leader of any other country , who is in control of his own country, who has a similar level of this vertical of power that putin possesses in russia. when the leader commits something, when president obama says, we will do this, it happens. this was one of the things he saw as different between bush and obama. he viewed bush as a guy who would say something, and would stand behind it, at least as far as his power allowed him to do so. his view of obama has been, he is to subject to domestic political constraints. to domesticbject political constraints. russia acceded to the wto organization. the implement thing legislation, we had to repeal these old, cold war era sanctions to get the benefit. along with that, a lot of folks on the hi
's an attorney. he worked in several capacities when george w. bush was the founder of texas. the halon affiliation and they were delighted that stuart bowen has developed such innovative and attractive materials to understand. i think it really is held that there's a lot of visual presentation of lessons and iraq and the very complicated story of funding what didn't work very well. and how we can do betterh next te. we have invited stuart bowen to meet his presentations first. we will then turn to jim schear, who has recently finished his second tour of the pentagon as an assistant secretary for responsibility for stability operations in his earlier career he was a research scholar at the national defense university, director of research there and worked throughout his career on these questions of stabilization and reconstruction including at the u.n. and some of its early post of war success stories in cambodia, the balkans and elsewhere. so how did stuart bowen ideas, what kind of responses were there more broadly in the pentagon and the interagency community and his own reflections
happened with george bush, of course. didn't call it recess. he called it looking to putin's eye and seeing his soul thinking he could understand the guy and do business. it didn't take him long to find out he didn't really have it right. there was no fallback, after that, i think it was the same situation. of just, you know, floundering about not knowing exactly how to deal with the russians. so yes, it really comes down to the person of valid my putin. it was always a sense of vladmir putin. things have definitely shifted since he announced he would come back and all of, by the way, the processes set in motion inside of russia. i'll thought about later. i think it's shaping very much how putin deals not only in domestic -- politics but foreign politicses. it's the lack of a notion how to deal with putin is kind of in the heart of a lot of these problem. >> that could be hard. he's a unique -- personality. i guess maybe we can sort of follow on that by pivoting off of cliff's point it's a little bit difficult to discern what the american strategy toward russia is. i have a lot of trouble d
george w. bush and principal deputy press secretary. and john verrico, president-elect of the national association of government communicators. so starting with carolyn, let's hear what you have to say, give us your overview of the subject. >> i'm going to tell you about a couple surveys i've conducted this year, and the previous year. that are relevant to the topic we're discussing tonight. first, i surveyed reporters who cover federal agencies here in washington. i've got 146 respondents within margin of error of about 7%. then i surveyed current and former members of the national association of government communicate is, at 154 responses from a margin of error of about 4.3%. i'm going to throw some numbers at you but i want to quantify the situation. my questions focus on the indie thing process. for someone to talk about preapproval and routing. 98% of public affairs officers believe that they have a better idea than reporters about who in the agencies would be the best person to give an interview on a given topic. three quarters of journalists report they have to give approval fro
for and what you were responsible for. >> guest: i served under but george w. bush administration and was appointed by the transportation secretary norman. and as you may know, he is a democrat who served in the republican administration and he was responsible for offering and then congress passed a reorganization act that led to the creation of this agency. and this agency fmsa receives a million daily shipments of hazardous air, land, truck, and sea, dessel and pipeline. >> host: you're current work with the national transportation advisers, what is that? >> guest: i am a lawyer by training and we also have a consulting practice. so, we talk infrastructure projects, transportation projects to both public and private sector clients. >> host: is one of your clients keystone xl? is anybody supporting trans canada? >> guest: no, sir. >> host: as far as keystone xl is concerned, the decision that you were taking, where do you stand if it shouldn't be built on the extension we've been talking about? >> guest: i've been monitoring this for several years. when i was at the d.o.t. the or
, boom, we saved george h.w. bush. race among we are stuck. we knew 100 years before the while thers, police let john mohammed go at least nine times, that racial profiles are problematic. question is, what can we do about it? weneed to keep doing what have just done in new york city where we passed the community what is a, because failure or for national security is a failure for neighborhood security. we need to focus on people's behavior, not on their race. ed last summer said derisively's officer working a neighborhood and he had a black and latino neighborhood and he had a suspect description of a race sucked -- rape suspect. he came across four young ladies sitting on a stoop, and said, have you seen this guy? no.soaid, they then stopped and frisked then. law enforcement is not that different from anything else. if you do one thing, you're not doing something else, so you better be doing the right thing. if you are searching for a rape suspect and you decide to stop and check if these for girls have a joint in their pocket, you are no longer looking for the rape suspect. that i
Search Results 0 to 26 of about 27 (some duplicates have been removed)